djackman wrote:What makes a legally owned gun (or owner) more dangerous in NYC than in Iowa?

That's why I have always said, most gun laws should be left up to local government (locally elected people) to decide. Obviously, a rancher in Iowa has more chance of needing a long gun to shoot wolves & a salesman in NYC has more need for a concealed pistol for self defense against muggers. Let the locals decide what they need/want.

BIG BEAM wrote:Now here we differ.I don't believe in the death penalty.The court and criminal justice system is just to corrupt the way it stands now.DON

So what do you do with a kidnapper who kidnaps a 4 year old & brutally kills him/her? ...No television for a week?

I say, give them a fair trial & then, if convicted, ....Let them go!! (but publicly announce where you will be setting them free & give the victim's family a few baseball bats with nails studding the barrel)

(afterwards......when thery come to see me....I'll take care of them!)

SuperBeetle wrote:Devil, exactly what do you see as "a common sense approach to firearms ownership here" ?

Too broad a question there Superbeetle. I'd have to see the particular law proposal but here are a few items I wouldn't object to. (Some may already be laws in some states) Here are just a few the quickly come to mind:

1. Magazine capacity--I see no legitimate need for ordinary citizens to have 30 round "banana" clips for any sport use2. Outlaw certain types of weapons, with common sense being the guide (ie no Flame Throwers for citizens of Manhattan! 3. I see no legitimate need for armor piercing ammo of any caliber4. I see no need for "Instant" background checks for firearms purposes. (there are no "Instant" Driver license tests either)

Common sense things like that. people have a Constitutional right to own firearms but society also has a Constitutional right to collectively defend itself.

How do you suppose the citizenry is to protect it's self from a tyrannical government with the limitations you propose? The NRA DOES NOT promote citizens owning any weapon and you would know that if you followed the links already provided. The original intent of the 2nd was to protect yourself from government, and it is sheer ignorance to think otherwise.

I'm also willing to bet that you voted for Obama while cheering for Paul in order to throw more votes away from McPain.

djackman wrote: Devil505 wrote:So what we do as a society is weigh the usefulness of the "potentially dangerous" thing against it's usefulness to us as a society. The car obviously has a much greater usefulness than danger to us & so does the baseball bat as a sporting device. What is the societal usefulness of a flame thrower, armor piercing ammo or the like??

That's the same as the "needs" argument. The usefulness of guns has nothing to do with owning one; the person holding a gun determines its use, lawful or unlawful. It looks like this is where we disagree.

I think my earlier response was too hasty & I missed your point here. My point would be that there are certain things that have no intrinsic use to society no matter who's hands they are in.

Example: I fail to see any possible value to society (to weigh against it's danger) of armor piercing ammo. , for example. Outside of military uses, your above statement.." the person holding a gun determines its use, lawful or unlawful...."doesn't account for things that simply have not possible legitimate or lawful purpose in a civilian setting.

Let's try another example:Suppose I am a law abiding 56 year old ex-Marine who loves military equipment & has lots of money. Why shouldn't I be able to buy & restore a WWII German Tiger Tank & make it fully functional including it's machine gun & 88mm main gun?This is where we may disagree. I feel that society's right to be worried about the consequences of what that tank could do in the wrong hands (or even in mine if I lost my mind) far outweigh my individual rights, & we therefore society has a collective right to forbid such a restoration. Opinions will differ & that is the heart of a Democracy....The art of compromising competing opinions & views, with "majority rule" being dominant in deciding most disagreements.

Last edited by Devil505 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

SAU wrote:How do you suppose the citizenry is to protect it's self from a tyrannical government with the limitations you propose?

SAU wrote:The original intent of the 2nd was to protect yourself from government, and it is sheer ignorance to think otherwise.

The original intent of the 2nd amendment will always be open for debate/opinion. It is equally possible that the founding fathers were simply trying to devise a means of national defense against foreign enemies, (including Indians) prior to the emergence of a large standing army in the field. Why would that be "sheer ignorance" to think possible?

SAU wrote:I'm also willing to bet that you voted for Obama while cheering for Paul in order to throw more votes away from McPain.

I already announced my intention to switch back to voting for Obama (instead of R. Paul) 2 days b4 the election when the McCain campaign began running Rev. Wright ads just b4 the election. That angered me so much that I vowed I would overlook my disdain of the Democratic Party these last few years & vote for Obama. No secret there. (In any case....I vote in Massachusetts,so how I vote means nothing. ......There is never going to be a Republican winner (for President) in this state!..In 1972, we were the only state in the nation NOT to vote for Nixon!!

Last edited by Devil505 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:31 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.James Madison

The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.James Madison Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.James Madison

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.James Madison

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.James Madison

We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties.James Madison

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson,

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" Noah Webster

Bet you didn't read this far because you know your arguments are weakself

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." Alexander Hamilton

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." George Mason

Your psuedohistory reeks of socialistic intent. The real history is still available, although one often has to buy antique history books to find it.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry

Let's not get hung up in the weeds here Paul. There are REAL armor piercing rounds that the military so designates & is usually a matter of the extra weight/mass of the tip itself (depleted uranium, etc) that makes for the "Armor Piercing" designation by the military & then there are Teflon coated bullets "advertised" as armor piercing, who's effectiveness for that purpose is debatable. What is not debatable, IMO is that there are no legitimate hunting or sporting purposes that would call for that type of round. Their intention is simply to kill people (namely police type people) &, as such, should not be publicly available.

Depleted uranium. And you say I'm off in the weeds. For the love of... Know many people with a military surplus Avenger cannon off an A-10 Warthog? Maybe a Gatling or Mini Gun? See a lot of those floating around the local gun shop? The relative unavailability and cost of the rounds alone enough to prevent their wide circulation, much less the cost of such a gun and the Federal excise taxes and ATF licensing needed to own one though legal means.

And again, what criminal actually interested in using such a round is going to be stopped by law? They already have to go through illegal channels to get the stuff since it is almost all stolen military ammo. If they are paying for that kind of ammo they have a purpose for which no new law is going to stop them.

Weeds aside, if they would actually write a law that narrowly and specifically it might have a fighting chance and I might be able to be brought to agree with it, but that isn't what politicians talking about armor piercing rounds really have in mind as has been made clear through the attempts at state and federal levels to implement such laws. They are written much more broadly, often in such a way that they can claim deniability with opponents saying they want to ban various common hunting rounds that have armor piercing capability, yet when the law gets used in a court is very likely to be interpreted in the broader sense and lead to a creeping expansion of more and more outlawed rounds. This is how it has happened in Canada and Britain and other places, it is absolutely the intent here among those pushing for such a law.

You call those "liberal Democrat" intentions.....I'd call allot of that common sense. "distance from schools laws".....should we allow hunting in school yards?....."gun range zoning and property taxing,"......Should profit making gun ranges be tax exempt?...Should there be no zoning restrictions? (how about setting up a firing range shooting across a major interstate highway, for the fun of it?)

You really are the master of the straw-man argument, aren't you? Depleted uranium ammo? Tax exemption? Ranges shooting across a highway? For someone supposedly wanting to discuss "common sense" gun control laws you sure like to throw a lot of non-sense argument points out there.

Distance from schools is about locations of gun dealers. Obama, for instance, has in the past voiced support for a law that would have made it illegal to operate a gun shop within 5 miles of a school. Not exactly gun confiscation, but it is the government putting family businesses and corporate chain stores out of business or forcing them to move into the sticks where they are likely to have less business. Throw on the tax schemes that have been proposed targeting guns and ammo sales, taking a cue from the way tobacco and smoking is taxed.

Range zoning and property taxes aren't about tax exemption. First of all, most ranges aren't for-profit entities. At least none that I've ever gone to. They are typically clubs operated as non-profits or not-for-profits kept afloat by increasing dues and memberships to stem the tide of rapidly increasing property taxes and insurance rates. This was reference to efforts by communities to force these ranges out of existence by either changing their zoning or that of surrounding areas to make it impossible to operate the range, or passing new unreasonable noise ordinances and property tax hikes or saddling them with bogus environmental impact studies at their expense. This isn't about determining where new ranges go (though that too is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to do due to the same people and laws), it is about forcing long established ones out.

Last edited by pvolcko on Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:08 am, edited 2 times in total.

There are plenty of criminals walking the streets as it is. That they exist in our society is a fact. Giving them easier access to firearms than they already have is not something I want to do.

If I wanted to break the law I could probably get a handgun inside of an hour, definitely in one day. If I were willing to steal from a family member I could have one in 15 minutes. No background check, no waiting period, probably at relatively low cost, and "untraceable" in that my name isn't going to be attached to the gun in any way.

To do it legally in this state and county takes between 3 and 6 months, and that permit will likely only allow sporting use or on premises use of the gun, not concealed carry. To get a new handgun once the permit is granted takes at least two trips to the gun shop and one to the licensing office, basically half a day of running back and forth.

Increasing gun control laws is not going to make it easier for criminals to get guns or ammo or make anyone "more safe" from criminals, it only makes it harder for law abiding people to get these things and thus makes those people less safe. Reducing gun control laws also doesn't make it any easier for the criminal to acquire, but it does help the law abiding.

So am I Paul. I only argue against those who refuse to admit or just don't understand what the NRA really is. They are a gun lobby for the firearms industry. Nothing wrong with that any more than the Insurance industry's lobby, or the Morticians lobby, or the Flower Grower's lobby's watching out for the interests of their industry's in Congress & occasionally providing a public service through education as well. What I argue against is the idea, that many people have, that the NRA is really a Constitutional Rights organization, MAINLY interested in fighting for us gun owners to keep our rights!! They aren't........They are there to make sure that we keep buying products made by & for the firearms industry. You & I understand that Paul, but not everyone does.

I do not understand them to be that. I said they are that "in part", not "in total". They do represent gun owners on constitutional issues. They were the strongest advocate the people of New Orleans had in getting their guns given back to them after the confiscation there during Katrina. They fought to get federal legislation passed to reassert what should have been a given in this country, that no government, federal or state, has the right to take away law abiding peoples guns at any time, much less during an emergency. They helped fight DC and won a victory for the people in the Heller case. They have fought handgun bans and overzealous gun control laws in San Fran and Chicago, and hopefully soon NYC and NJ.

They aren't a perfect organization and certainly they do lobby in part for things that benefit the gun industry, but much of those issues are equally beneficial to the people and the general membership. Fighting microstamping, for instance. A great thing benefiting you and me and the industry. Fighting laws that would limit handguns to those with unrpoven, unimplemented, theoretical personalized locking mechanisms (like biometric electronics to only fire if a programmed user is holding the gun), good for both the people and the industry. Fighting the many bogus, overly broad "armor piercing" laws that have come down the pike, good for both sides again. Fighting BS "assault weapons" bans, good for people like me who own a so called "assault weapon" (damn good thing it doesn't have a bayonet lug on it or else I might have opted to stab someone when my 5/10 round magazine was spent, guess I just have to resort to using a knife now, oy) and those who manufacture them.

I do believe the NRA is mainly interested in protecting gun owners, hunters, and shooting sports. They do this through support of instruction classes and instructors, competition shooting, legal efforts, political advocacy and election advocacy, and federal and state congressional lobbying. This mission benefits the gun makers and often such efforts will take the form of protecting the makers from overreaching laws and regs designed to hurt and/or put them out of business and thus hurt the people.

Devil505 wrote:Let's try another example:Suppose I am a law abiding 56 year old ex-Marine who loves military equipment & has lots of money. Why shouldn't I be able to buy & restore a WWII German Tiger Tank & make it fully functional including it's machine gun & 88mm main gun?This is where we may disagree. I feel that society's right to be worried about the consequences of what that tank could do in the wrong hands (or even in mine if I lost my mind) far outweigh my individual rights, & we therefore society has a collective right to forbid such a restoration. Opinions will differ & that is the heart of a Democracy....The art of compromising competing opinions & views, with "majority rule" being dominant in deciding most disagreements.

These conceptual questions are avoiding the subject which is further restrictions on currently legal to purchase/own firearms. If it's legal to privately own and make operational a 88mm canon then so be it. Again, I don't view the "hardware" as a threat but rather the person behind it. If you own a large bulldozer, should you be prohibited from buying steel plate and tubing since you could armor plate it and make a cannon? Jeeze

If "majority rule" was how it worked most hot-button issues would go away. But then politicians would have to do more than waste O2. I suspect gun ownership would clear easily if put to a vote of the people (not their "representatives") - there's a lot of people between US major metro areas.

The view of blaming the symptom instead of the disease has become prevalent. Guns may make killing easier but they do not _cause_ any deaths.

Devil505 wrote:That's why I have always said, most gun laws should be left up to local government (locally elected people) to decide. Obviously, a rancher in Iowa has more chance of needing a long gun to shoot wolves & a salesman in NYC has more need for a concealed pistol for self defense against muggers. Let the locals decide what they need/want.

So you want to invalidate the 2nd amendment and leave it up to the states? The question of IA vs NYC had nothing to do with long guns vs handguns but rather what makes a gun or it's owner more dangerous in a different geographical area since the permit availability process varies so widely.

Gun ownership in many metro areas has become a classic case of "innocent paying for the guilty". Criminals use guns, so let's find ways to restrict law abiding citizens from owning guns so politicos can talk about how they are "tough on gun control".

Something is wrong with the system when criminals can affect the rights of law abiding citizens.

pvolcko wrote:Weeds aside, if they would actually write a law that narrowly and specifically it might have a fighting chance and I might be able to be brought to agree with it

I'm not sure I understand your position here Paul?? Let's try this: Would you be against a law that is narrowly written to expressly ban the public sale of ammo advertised to be armor piercing, whether effective for that purpose or not? (I would)

(For your info, I happen to have a military surplus Avenger cannon off an A-10 Warthog, mounted on my Honda Accord for traffic clearing purposes!!)